Well personally I dont belive in evil at all, its just a notion. And whats this to do with cartoon super villains?
If its madness, then a man isnt really all there in his mind, its not like hes really even deciding what he really wants to do from a social point of view, then again Evil is such a subjective term anyway since what defines evil is a beings beliefs, if in some random part of the world its not evil to eat your own young is simply a clever way of survivial yet to the eyes of the average modern women that would be both barbaric, sick and evil then evil is simply a view, an opinion.
If your mad then your view is bent and you cannot be considered evil by any unbias and educated view due to the fact your not actually all there to judge things from soceities point of view.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Well personally I dont belive in evil at all, its just a notion.
so what, in your opinon, is the moral argument in favor of slavery?
what about the oppression of gender/class/race/ethnicity?
if something is not evil, there must be a moral argument for it, that would pass the muster of basic philosophical analysis. If you cannot say why the murder of 6 million people could be morally good (or even neutral), then it is evil.
Imho, in the case of Hitler, unless we accept the nonsense position that Jews are less than human (ignoring the politically motivated deaths, etc), there is no possible moral argument for his actions.
Originally posted by Burning thought
If its madness, then a man isnt really all there in his mind,
see, this is very wonderful. You argue post-modern definitions of evil, yet claim to have an absolute claim for what is "sanity"?
"madness", like evil, is a contextually subjective idea (this does not, imho, disqualify absolutes from existing, especially in the case of evil). Hitler fails any objective/scientific definition of "insanity" on the specific fact that he was able to live within society.
The only definition of sanity you are using, is a moral one. In this case you prove my point, only use a different word to describe it. I don't really quibble semantics though 😉
Originally posted by Burning thought
its not like hes really even deciding what he really wants to do from a social point of view,
sure he is. Unless you think that there are different descision making processes for things which are influenced by disordered thinking than things which are of a social influence. Unfortunatly, man is not dualistic in that nature, and the two are tied together.
This view of history also patently de-emphasizes the role of the individual. The easiest example is that people are affected by society in different ways. If what you are saying is true, there are no black men making it out of the ghetto.
Originally posted by Burning thought
then again Evil is such a subjective term anyway since what defines evil is a beings beliefs,
indeed. subjective does not mean there are no absolutes.
Originally posted by Burning thought
if in some random part of the world its not evil to eat your own young is simply a clever way of survivial
oh, the mind of the post-modern thinker!
but wait, you have made a logical fallacy!
benefit =/= moral
to begin with, I don't think what you have described has ever happened in human civilization (there are huge overlaps in morals between cultures). Secondly, you have, in your statement, provided practical reasons for these people to act immorally (ie: WW2, while being immoral, was necessary. sometimes evil must be done in order for survival). Finally, because it is a cultural practice, does not make it moral. Morality is not defined by popularity.
Originally posted by Burning thought
yet to the eyes of the average modern women that would be both barbaric, sick and [b]evil then evil is simply a view, an opinion. [/B]
taking the life of another is immoral. Sometimes it is necessary (like in self defence) or even practical (like in abortion), but there is no ethical argument that can be made for that action, unless you conflate morality with benefit to society, which is a logical fallacy, I think I'm even channeling Bentham on that one.
Originally posted by Burning thought
If your mad then your view is bent and you cannot be considered evil by any unbias and educated view due to the fact your not actually all there to judge things from soceities point of view.
you have a very biased and uneducated view of what mental illness is.
and as I mentioned above, the definition you use proves my argument correct, as it is defined by morality, and not by empirical evidence.
Originally posted by Burning thought
And whats this to do with cartoon super villains?
Easy, you define evil by intent. As if evil people sit around schemeing how to bring down good, honest people. As if they know they are evil and are going to do things that are against the will of normal people.
Its like, only Doc Oc is evil, because he has no regard for others. But oh, give him some justification for stealing and murdering, and it is cool, because he is just misunderstood by society at large.
No matter how far you want to break it down, evil is simply based on the perspective.
Is it evil to run over a country on false pretense? Well, I guess it should be, but that's what the U.S. did and most citizens were all for it, initially. If there were few deaths for U.S. soldiers and somehow we could have taken the economic hit, no one would even consider the "immoral/illegal" issues with going to Iraq in the first place. Of course, from the point of view of the Iraqi citizens it was bullshit/evil(?) who lost plenty in the process (this is of course bearing in mind that the entire point of going to Iraq didn't have shit to do with bringing democracy to Iraq as a humanitarian mission).
All I'm saying is that it changes with the times to suit whatever people want to feel "ok" about.
In Metal Gear Solid 3, The Boss said that you are never fighting a nation but an idea because the ideas of a nation will change over time and the enemy might become a friend and vice versa.
I have my own standard of how I live and what I decide to do, but that in no way makes it universal for all people.
Originally posted by chithappens
No matter how far you want to break it down, evil is simply based on the perspective.
so what is the moral argument in favor of slavery?
Originally posted by chithappens
Is it evil to run over a country on false pretense?
not all moral issues are black and white. I would say yes to the question above, but reasonable people can disagree. Whether there are nobel lies, however, is a much more complicated question than whether Hitler was evil or not.
Like above, can you provide moral justification for the camps, the ghettos, the gassing of people in the streets, starting a war with Europe and Russia?
Originally posted by chithappens
Well, I guess it should be, but that's what the U.S. did and most citizens were all for it, initially. If there were few deaths for U.S. soldiers and somehow we could have taken the economic hit, no one would even consider the "immoral/illegal" issues with going to Iraq in the first place.
I'd agree that many, if not most, people are moral hypocrites. But as your point insinuates, we both agree on the immorality of war.
imho war is one of the very few things where practicallity can outweigh morality, but that is a very subjective line.
Originally posted by chithappens
Of course, from the point of view of the Iraqi citizens it was bullshit/evil(?) who lost plenty in the process (this is of course bearing in mind that the entire point of going to Iraq didn't have shit to do with bringing democracy to Iraq as a humanitarian mission).
again, I agree. I was not trying to imply that Hitler is immoral as opposed to the current American administration.
I personally am inclined to believe that all gvt is evil, but I'm certainly not arguing that as an absolute.
Originally posted by chithappens
All I'm saying is that it changes with the times to suit whatever people want to feel "ok" about.In Metal Gear Solid 3, The Boss said that you are never fighting a nation but an idea because the ideas of a nation will change over time and the enemy might become a friend and vice versa.
indeed. Those in power will use the language of morality to lead and mislead the public.
I don't think this addresses the fact that there are some things that have no moral justification.
Originally posted by chithappens
I have my own standard of how I live and what I decide to do, but that in no way makes it universal for all people.
most personal preferences and morals are subjective, though they are more or less variances along a spectrum (either for or against a particular action). For some issues there is no spectrum.
Originally posted by inimalist
so what is the moral argument in favor of slavery?not all moral issues are black and white. I would say yes to the question above, but reasonable people can disagree. Whether there are nobel lies, however, is a much more complicated question than whether Hitler was evil or not.
Like above, can you provide moral justification for the camps, the ghettos, the gassing of people in the streets, starting a war with Europe and Russia?
I'd agree that many, if not most, people are moral hypocrites. But as your point insinuates, we both agree on the immorality of war.
imho war is one of the very few things where practicallity can outweigh morality, but that is a very subjective line.
again, I agree. I was not trying to imply that Hitler is immoral as [b]opposed
to the current American administration.I personally am inclined to believe that all gvt is evil, but I'm certainly not arguing that as an absolute.
indeed. Those in power will use the language of morality to lead and mislead the public.
I don't think this addresses the fact that there are some things that have no moral justification.
most personal preferences and morals are subjective, though they are more or less variances along a spectrum (either for or against a particular action). For some issues there is no spectrum. [/B]
All moral preference are subjective. You still have to account for the fact that something can only be completely morally wrong if you allow yourself to believe so.
I'm not trying to say make comparisons between Hitler and the current U.S administration (if I wanted to go U.S. politics, I would go more into Big Stick "Latin American" policy, or Iran-Contra, or colonization).
I'm not trying to make moral arguments for stuff like slavery. Obviously, (in the case of U.S. slavery) niggers are animal-like and you can treat them like property, similar to a pet. No one says the rationale has to make sense. You can believe it with all your soul and it does not make it "fair/moral."
Originally posted by chithappens
All moral preference are subjective. You still have to account for the fact that something can only be completely morally wrong if you allow yourself to believe so.I'm not trying to say make comparisons between Hitler and the current U.S administration (if I wanted to go U.S. politics, I would go more into Big Stick "Latin American" policy, or Iran-Contra, or colonization).
I'm not trying to make moral arguments for stuff like slavery. Obviously, (in the case of U.S. slavery) niggers are animal-like and you can treat them like property, similar to a pet. No one says the rationale has to make sense. You can believe it with all your soul and it does not make it "fair/moral."
I understand what you are saying. Obviously there is my subjective belief that an absolute line can be drawn for immoral behaviour.
However, I feel a lot of that is a cop out from actually taking the charge of my position. Rationally defend something that I have said clearly crosses the line into immorlity, rather than claiming that line can't be drawn.
We both know that "niggers as pets" really doesn't hold water. I guess I will concede that what is known empirically can change over time, and has cultural bias, however I feel we are getting closer to knowing objectivity than farther.
I don't believe morality is democratic. Just because some people are ignorant doesn't mean something isn't morally right. The oppression of women in the Victorian era was morally wrong. Those who participated in it were acting immorally. They may not have known any better, nor do I think we should condemn them as a people for those actions, lets just call a spade a spade. There was no justifiable reason for them to do so, aside from the fact that their culture was still dominated by our innate patriarchies.
Originally posted by inimalistI don't believe morality is democratic. Just because some people are ignorant doesn't mean something isn't morally right. The oppression of women in the Victorian era was morally wrong. Those who participated in it were acting immorally. They may not have known any better, nor do I think we should condemn them as a people for those actions, lets just call a spade a spade. There was no justifiable reason for them to do so, aside from the fact that their culture was still dominated by our innate patriarchies.
I don't disagree but my question would be to you is how do you know your ways are not immoral now?
Certainly you would be considered a fool but nearly everyone of that time period. Would you be able to stick your ground if no one else believed as you did?
Originally posted by inimalist
so what, in your opinon, is the moral argument in favor of slavery?what about the oppression of gender/class/race/ethnicity?
if something is not evil, there must be a moral argument for it, that would pass the muster of basic philosophical analysis. If you cannot say why the murder of 6 million people could be morally good (or even neutral), then it is evil.
Imho, in the case of Hitler, unless we accept the nonsense position that Jews are less than human (ignoring the politically motivated deaths, etc), there is no possible moral argument for his actions.
see, this is very wonderful. You argue post-modern definitions of evil, yet claim to have an absolute claim for what is "sanity"?
"madness", like evil, is a contextually subjective idea (this does not, imho, disqualify absolutes from existing, especially in the case of evil). Hitler fails any objective/scientific definition of "insanity" on the specific fact that he was able to live within society.
The only definition of sanity you are using, is a moral one. In this case you prove my point, only use a different word to describe it. I don't really quibble semantics though 😉
sure he is. Unless you think that there are different descision making processes for things which are influenced by disordered thinking than things which are of a social influence. Unfortunatly, man is not dualistic in that nature, and the two are tied together.
This view of history also patently de-emphasizes the role of the individual. The easiest example is that people are affected by society in different ways. If what you are saying is true, there are no black men making it out of the ghetto.
indeed. subjective does not mean there are no absolutes.
oh, the mind of the post-modern thinker!
but wait, you have made a logical fallacy!
benefit =/= moral
to begin with, I don't think what you have described has ever happened in human civilization (there are huge overlaps in morals between cultures). Secondly, you have, in your statement, provided practical reasons for these people to act immorally (ie: WW2, while being immoral, was necessary. sometimes evil must be done in order for survival). Finally, because it is a cultural practice, does not make it moral. Morality is not defined by popularity.
taking the life of another is immoral. Sometimes it is necessary (like in self defence) or even practical (like in abortion), but there is no ethical argument that can be made for that action, unless you conflate morality with benefit to society, which is a logical fallacy, I think I'm even channeling Bentham on that one.
you have a very biased and uneducated view of what mental illness is.
and as I mentioned above, the definition you use proves my argument correct, as it is defined by morality, and not by empirical evidence.
Easy, you define evil by intent. As if evil people sit around schemeing how to bring down good, honest people. As if they know they are evil and are going to do things that are against the will of normal people.
Its like, only Doc Oc is evil, because he has no regard for others. But oh, give him some justification for stealing and murdering, and it is cool, because he is just misunderstood by society at large.
Slavery makes no sense because the average black guy is as intelligent and deserving as a place in the world as the average white guy, same with anyone really, any person. There is no reason to belive Slavery is worthwhile.
If something is not evil it only requires knowledge of the fact the being causing the so called "evil" is not understanding what it is really doing. Hitler did not actually "kill" the Jews, infact we dont know if he even gave the order, all we know is it happened under his authority.
Ime curious what do you call evil? since to me its a base religious term used for the supernatural entities that imo dont excist. In real life you only have things that are accepted by a person, or simply not, butchery of a young child just because a guy is bored would be considered evil by many, but what right do a few random people have to judge this action? just because the majority of these people think so?
True madness is absolute, when I talk of insanity, I talk of what I think it means in truth, when a man is insane he does not know what he is doing, otherwise it is simply a label a group of people slap on a guy for doing something which is not the norm or is agains the ideas of that soceity.
I woudlnt say a bias and uneducated view, how so?
A man who is mentally ill, simply has not his own mind...he does not understand what he is doing, if a man was mentally ill and jumped off a building in fitfull laughter, he is not of his own mind.
Originally posted by chithappens
I don't disagree but my question would be to you is how do you know your ways are not immoral now?
I can't say they are not. We could get super reductionist, and I guess at the absolute lowest level, what I believe is subjective just because I can't ever prove that anything exists.
I would assume as we figure out more about the world around us, we will be better able to define our impact on each other. Who knows, maybe in 50 years there will be no moral argument for eating meat? I'd have quite a bit of egg on my face then.
Originally posted by chithappens
Certainly you would be considered a fool but nearly everyone of that time period. Would you be able to stick your ground if no one else believed as you did?
lol, don't get me wrong, I'm no saint. I, as I believe all humans have, have done selfish and ******* type actions which are clearly immoral.
Not believing in any divine punishment for such morals sort of lets me off the hook for doing things that might be immoral, we just haven't figured it out yet.
So, roundaboutly, its more than likely that I would be caught up in the grand scheme of culture, but I'd like to think I'd still feel the way I do.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Slavery makes no sense because the average black guy is as intelligent and deserving as a place in the world as the average white guy, same with anyone really, any person. There is no reason to belive Slavery is worthwhile.
so, we don't need to argue anymore? We agree that slavery is absolutely morally wrong? sweet 🙂
Originally posted by Burning thought
If something is not evil it only requires knowledge of the fact the being causing the so called "evil" is not understanding what it is really doing.
does this mean: "Something is not evil if the being causing what would be called evil is unaware of its actions?"
yes, that is fine, we would agree. For the relevance to Hitler, see the next point:
Originally posted by Burning thought
Hitler did not actually "kill" the Jews, infact we dont know if he even gave the order, all we know is it happened under his authority.
Actually, I believe that premise to be false. The case of the Supreme Court vs Ernst Zundel in the Canadian Supreme Court went into the writings of Holocaust denier Zundel and tried to have him prove his case. In the proceedings of the trial, overwhelming evidence in Hitler's organizing role in the orchestration of the Holocaust is shown.
At the very least (and the best example I remember), Hitler was involved in trucks that would drive through the streets and eliminate Jews and political enemies.
Also, isn't that a really poor argument?
Originally posted by Burning thought
Ime curious what do you call evil?
that for which there is no moral justification
Originally posted by Burning thought
since to me its a base religious term used for the supernatural entities that imo dont excist.
so you were making assumptions about what I was saying?
Originally posted by Burning thought
In real life you only have things that are accepted by a person, or simply not, butchery of a young child just because a guy is bored would be considered evil by many, but what right do a few random people have to judge this action? just because the majority of these people think so?
yes, and because there is no moral justification for the murder of a child, the action would be immoral. It doesn't matter what people think.
also, morality in my world is not a matter of judgment. 😉
Originally posted by Burning thought
True madness is absolute, when I talk of insanity, I talk of what I think it means in truth, when a man is insane he does not know what he is doing,
so madness means no conscious control of actions?
ok, Hitler does not qualify for that, thus he is sane, thus he is evil. Wicked.
Originally posted by Burning thought
otherwise it is simply a label a group of people slap on a guy for doing something which is not the norm or is agains the ideas of that soceity.
actually, there are much more valid and encompassing definitions of mental illness and mental disorder, but I will forgive you for not knowing them.
Originally posted by Burning thought
I woudlnt say a bias and uneducated view, how so?
well, uneducated because, and I hate to make assumptions, it seems that you have never even spent a superferlous ammount of time looking at mental health, yet speak of it in some authoritarian fashion.
biased, well, because you made all this up yourself, it has to be biased. And, well, as humans, everything we say is biased. For instance, my entire argument is biased to prove what I want to. Funny how that works, eh? LOL, its why the Results section is separate from the General Discussion section.
Originally posted by Burning thought
A man who is mentally ill, simply has not his own mind...he does not understand what he is doing, if a man was mentally ill and jumped off a building in fitfull laughter, he is not of his own mind.
lol, trying to make poetic prose is hardly a proof of anything.
Originally posted by inimalist
so, we don't need to argue anymore? We agree that slavery is absolutely morally wrong? sweet 🙂does this mean: "Something is not evil if the being causing what would be called evil is unaware of its actions?"
yes, that is fine, we would agree. For the relevance to Hitler, see the next point:
Actually, I believe that premise to be false. The case of the Supreme Court vs Ernst Zundel in the Canadian Supreme Court went into the writings of Holocaust denier Zundel and tried to have him prove his case. In the proceedings of the trial, overwhelming evidence in Hitler's organizing role in the orchestration of the Holocaust is shown.
At the very least (and the best example I remember), Hitler was involved in trucks that would drive through the streets and eliminate Jews and political enemies.
Also, isn't that a really poor argument?
that for which there is no moral justification
so you were making assumptions about what I was saying?
yes, and because there is no moral justification for the murder of a child, the action would be immoral. It doesn't matter what people think.
also, morality in my world is not a matter of judgment. 😉
so madness means no conscious control of actions?
ok, Hitler does not qualify for that, thus he is sane, thus he is evil. Wicked.
actually, there are much more valid and encompassing definitions of mental illness and mental disorder, but I will forgive you for not knowing them.
well, uneducated because, and I hate to make assumptions, it seems that you have never even spent a superferlous ammount of time looking at mental health, yet speak of it in some authoritarian fashion.
biased, well, because you made all this up yourself, it has to be biased. And, well, as humans, everything we say is biased. For instance, my entire argument is biased to prove what I want to. Funny how that works, eh? LOL, its why the Results section is separate from the General Discussion section.
lol, trying to make poetic prose is hardly a proof of anything.
not just morally, its just not logical, if Black people were actually less intelligent more like animals I certainly wouldnt flinch from having a guy running around for me doing chores, It simply isnt possible since they are not unintelligent.
its not poor because everyone calls Hitler evil for what happened when infact the worst thing he did was "allow" it to happen, at the Wansee conference when it was being discussed Eichman heading it, the Natzi host were first discussing shipping them to Madagascar, not gas chambers, infact gas chambers may have been at first turned down due to the cost. Also btw, concentration camps killed more people than gas chambers.
But what would you call a moral justification, give me an example please
If he does not qulaify for that then the argument still does not make him evil for the above reasons.
Then calling me Bias is pointless if its base value that we are all bias...
Ofc its proof, if a man did that is he being evil? ie he even though with no clue of what hes doing causing sin, its not his own mind afterall, infact a man who would do that act likely has no mind at all.
Calling Hitler evil is worse than calling George Bush evil, because at least we dont know as a fact/certainty that Hitler was the entire prime behind the holocaust, wheras we know Bush wants to take on Iraq for "peace keeping" (i.e, grabbing as much oil as his greedy country wants and playing world police)
Originally posted by Burning thoughtCalling Hitler evil is worse than calling George Bush evil, because at least we dont know as a fact/certainty that Hitler was the entire prime behind the holocaust, wheras we know Bush wants to take on Iraq for "peace keeping" (i.e, grabbing as much oil as his greedy country wants and playing world police)
On this point I'll have to disagree. Bush has claimed to be unaware that the intelligence was incorrect just as Hitler was supposedly unaware of what happened. It's not as if once it started he couldn't have stopped it once he knew "the truth". Same for Bush.
Originally posted by Burning thought
not just morally, its just not logical, if Black people were actually less intelligent more like animals I certainly wouldnt flinch from having a guy running around for me doing chores, It simply isnt possible since they are not unintelligent.
a) What do you mean, isn't possible? It happened. Slavery has existed for thousands of years in every culture... Black being intelligent did not stop them from being enslaved... Just for personal interest, is english your first language?
b) This does not address my point. You in fact agree with me, thus we can conclude slavery is immoral.
c) You have just given a justification (though very poor) for the use of the mentally handicapped as slaves. The extension of your logic is that less intelligent people are less human, which proves the opposite to be quite true (ie: someone smart enough to think about morals is acting less than human by condemning others)
Originally posted by Burning thought
its not poor because everyone calls Hitler evil for what happened when infact the worst thing he did was "allow" it to happen, at the Wansee conference when it was being discussed Eichman heading it, the Natzi host were first discussing shipping them to Madagascar, not gas chambers, infact gas chambers may have been at first turned down due to the cost. Also btw, concentration camps killed more people than gas chambers.If he does not qulaify for that then the argument still does not make him evil for the above reasons.
your argument is not that Hitler wasn't evil because evil doesn't exist, but instead that Hitler wasn't evil because he wasn't personally involved in the holocaust?
ok....
a) So if I provide evidence that shows Hitler's involvement in the extermination of Jews you will admit he was evil?
b) What would your standard of evidence be for this?
c) Are you saying that usurping a democracy and starting WW2 are not evil as well? Waging war on Russia, a nation who had a non-aggression pact with Germany, is certainly evil, as would be the change in bombing tactics in Britian from military to civilian targets. Holocaust aside, Hitler was pretty evil
Originally posted by Burning thought
But what would you call a moral justification, give me an example please
a moral justification is something that explains, morally, why it is ok to do something.
for example, it is ok for me to smoke outside because I am only hurting myself and those who choose to be near to me.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Then calling me Bias is pointless if its base value that we are all bias...
obviously, however, I was responding to your insinuation that my position was uneducated and unbiased by directly accusing you of such. We can debate in a mature fashion or we can go the ad hominem route, either way satisfies me 🙂
Originally posted by Burning thought
Ofc its proof, if a man did that is he being evil? ie he even though with no clue of what hes doing causing sin, its not his own mind afterall, infact a man who would do that act likely has no mind at all.
I agreed to this in the last post. A person not in control of their actions cannot be held accountable for them (in general, things like intoxication etc are blurrier).
Hitler was in control of his actions, so this is a moot point in this discussion. Your argument above is that Hitler was unaware of the actions his subordinates were taking, not that he was out of control when he initiated the holocaust. The arguments you are making are mutually exclusive
Originally posted by Burning thought
Calling Hitler evil is worse than calling George Bush evil, because at least we dont know as a fact/certainty that Hitler was the entire prime behind the holocaust, wheras we know Bush wants to take on Iraq for "peace keeping" (i.e, grabbing as much oil as his greedy country wants and playing world police)
I could write volumes about how wrong you are on this.
The main difference: regardless of how much involvement you think Hitler had in the holocaust, he is undoubtly the father of Nazi-ism. He laid the ideological framework and lead the movement to its final conclusion.
Bush is a figurehead for the thoughts and ideologies of those "under" him. The Karl Roves, Dick Cheneys and Paul Wolfowitzs are the ideological and policy motivators of the current administration. The war in Iraq was planned prior to 2000 by Wolfowitz and co. under the auspices of the project for a new American millenium. Bush is a patsy, probably a willing one, but certainly not comparable to Hitler in this way
Originally posted by Burning thought
what do you mean, do you mean Wasnt aware his army was attacking Iraq's forces, I mean surely he was, most of the world were?
WMDs and terrorist organizations is what I was talking about. Did everyone forget about this stuff already? I didn't think I needed to be so explicit.